TY - JOUR
T1 - Human and ecological life cycle tools for the integrated assessment of systems (HELIAS)
AU - Guinée, Jeroen B.
AU - Heijungs, Reinout
AU - Kleijn, René
AU - Van Der Voet, Ester
AU - De Koning, Arjan
AU - Van Oers, Lauran
AU - Elshkaki, Ayman
AU - Huele, Ruben
AU - Huppes, Gjalt
AU - Suh, Sangwon
AU - Sleeswijk, Anneke Wegener
PY - 2006/4
Y1 - 2006/4
N2 - Goal, Scope and Background. CML has contributed to the development of life cycle decision support tools, particularly Substance/Material Flow Analysis (SFA respectively MFA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Ever since these tools emerged there have been discussions on how these tools relate to each other, and how they relate to more traditional tools. Remarkably little, however, has been published on these relationships from an empirical side: which combinations of tools have actually been used, and what is the added value of combining tools in practical case studies. In this paper, we report on CML's experience in this field by presenting a number of case studies with their related research questions, for which different tools were deployed. Methods. Three case studies are discussed: 1) Waste water treatment: various options for waste water treatment have been assessed on their eco-efficiency, using SFA to comment on the influence of these options on the flows of certain substances in the water system of a geographical area and a combination of LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) to assess the life-cycle impacts and costs of these options; 2) Prioritization of environmental policy measures: A methodology has been developed to prioritize environmental policy measures and investments within companies based on both the environmental impacts and the costs of these measures; and 3) Environmental weighting of materials: to add an environmental dimension to standard MFA accounts, materials were weighted with cradle-to-grave impact factors based on LCA data and impact assessment factors. Results and Discussion. For each of these cases, the research questions at stake, the tools applied, the results and the added value, limitations and problems of combining the tools are reported. Conclusions and Perspective. Based on these experiences, it is concluded that using several tools to address a complicated problem is not only a theoretical proposal, but also something that has been applied successfully in a variety of practical situations. Furthermore, using several tools in combination does not necessarily lead to an increased information supply to decision-makers. Instead, it may contribute to the comprehensibility and ease of interpretation of the information that would have been provided by using a single tool. Finally, it is concluded that there is not one generally valid protocol for which tools to use for which question. The essential idea of using a combination of tools is exactly the fact that research questions are not simple by nature and cannot be generalized into protocols.
AB - Goal, Scope and Background. CML has contributed to the development of life cycle decision support tools, particularly Substance/Material Flow Analysis (SFA respectively MFA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Ever since these tools emerged there have been discussions on how these tools relate to each other, and how they relate to more traditional tools. Remarkably little, however, has been published on these relationships from an empirical side: which combinations of tools have actually been used, and what is the added value of combining tools in practical case studies. In this paper, we report on CML's experience in this field by presenting a number of case studies with their related research questions, for which different tools were deployed. Methods. Three case studies are discussed: 1) Waste water treatment: various options for waste water treatment have been assessed on their eco-efficiency, using SFA to comment on the influence of these options on the flows of certain substances in the water system of a geographical area and a combination of LCA and life cycle costing (LCC) to assess the life-cycle impacts and costs of these options; 2) Prioritization of environmental policy measures: A methodology has been developed to prioritize environmental policy measures and investments within companies based on both the environmental impacts and the costs of these measures; and 3) Environmental weighting of materials: to add an environmental dimension to standard MFA accounts, materials were weighted with cradle-to-grave impact factors based on LCA data and impact assessment factors. Results and Discussion. For each of these cases, the research questions at stake, the tools applied, the results and the added value, limitations and problems of combining the tools are reported. Conclusions and Perspective. Based on these experiences, it is concluded that using several tools to address a complicated problem is not only a theoretical proposal, but also something that has been applied successfully in a variety of practical situations. Furthermore, using several tools in combination does not necessarily lead to an increased information supply to decision-makers. Instead, it may contribute to the comprehensibility and ease of interpretation of the information that would have been provided by using a single tool. Finally, it is concluded that there is not one generally valid protocol for which tools to use for which question. The essential idea of using a combination of tools is exactly the fact that research questions are not simple by nature and cannot be generalized into protocols.
KW - Integrated assessment of systems
KW - Life cycle costing (LCC)
KW - Life cycle tools, human and ecological
KW - Material flow analysis (MFA)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33646250457&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33646250457&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1065/lca2006.04.008
DO - 10.1065/lca2006.04.008
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:33646250457
SN - 0948-3349
VL - 11
SP - 19
EP - 28
JO - International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
JF - International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
IS - SPEC. ISS. 1
ER -